EU To Give Internet Firms 1 Hour To Remove Extremist Content (go.com) 238
European authorities are planning to slap internet companies like Google, Twitter and Facebook with big fines if they don't take down extremist content within one hour. From a report: European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said in a speech Wednesday that the Commission is proposing the new rules as part of efforts to step up the bloc's security. He said that removing material within an hour is important because it's "the critical window in which the greatest damage is done." The EU's executive body said "propaganda that prepares, incites or glorifies acts of terrorism" must be taken offline. Content would be flagged up by national authorities, who would issue removal orders to the internet companies hosting it. Those companies would be given one hour to delete it. The proposal, which still needs approval from EU lawmakers and member states, would be a departure for the EU, which until now has allowed online companies to a take a voluntary approach to battling extremist content. The one-hour rule was among a series of recommendations the Commission made in March to fight the spread of extremist content online.
Censor what WE say is unacceptable ... (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, good luck with that!
Re:Censor what WE say is unacceptable ... (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is extremist ideas can be created in very insidious ways. Much like the Fat Tony from the Simpsons approach...
Fat Tony: Bart, um, is it wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family?
Bart: No.
Fat Tony: Well, suppose you got a large starving family. Is it wrong to steal a truckload of bread to feed them?
Bart: Uh uh.
Fat Tony: And, what if your family don't like bread? They like...cigarettes?
Bart: I guess that's okay.
Fat Tony: Now, what if instead of giving them away, you sold them at a price that was practically giving them away. Would that be a crime, Bart?
Bart: Hell, no!
The normal arguments from extremists depending of their audience will work to push the gray areas where parts of the ideas are reasonable, then slowly push the gray areas into the extremist territory. But with an argument with a large gray area, where does one draw a line.
Re: (Score:2)
Still such messages can be under free speech. They are just sure to word their message appropriately. By your logic, the tracking down FBI most wanted individuals could be considered calling to hunt down and possibly kill a specific person. Or if you are hawkish towards a particular war then you are talking about hunting down a particular group of people. Trying to explain engineering and chemistry could fall under bomb making instructions.
Now Extremest dangerous hate speech is like porn, you know it w
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure that you can draw that line. There's far to much gray area to do that. In fact, I'm not sure how you even figure out where the gray shading ends and the "white pure speech" begins. It is unworkable, because it really needs a panel to consider each case with background on the individual and their history of comments. You can't really automate it, and if you just put a couple hundred people on the job and give them each some things to review, whether or not you get past will depend on the person,
Re: (Score:3)
so, suspend service to EU IP addresses and see if they care enough to reason their way out of a paper bag.
Re: (Score:3)
Suddenly Brexit looks sane...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The UK government already told internet companies that it wants them to go far, far further than this.
Brexit will make it worse once you lose your human rights, of which freedom of expression and privacy are two. The current PM has said repeatedly that she wants to get rid of them.
Re:Censor what WE say is unacceptable ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's see if I have this straight. It's 0313 on Sunday morning during the August holidays and the security guard -- the only living entity in the facility -- gets a call from some dude who claims to be European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and is told to remove a racist slogan from somewhere on some website. The ISP now has 1 hour to verify the call isn't a prank, identify the right file, trace through a bunch of obscure Javascript, and get the proper web site off the air. Riiiiiight. No problem there. What could possibly go wrong?
Re:Censor what WE say is unacceptable ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Bingo, you got it right there. Nothing what so ever to do with extremist content. One hour notice, to pull any political comment and then weeks to put it back up only to have to pull it back down again an hour latter. What is the directive about, bulk 'er' accidental mass political censorship.
Want to pull something from the internet, do it in court you cunts. If it really was illegal, not only will you get the content pulled but get to hand out a custodial sentence for a criminal act but oh no, that is not what you want, nothing at all to do with crime, oh know wait it is, electoral crimes. Basically using the offices of government to actively and routinely censor the opposition and the public.
Re: (Score:2)
It only applies to larger companies and only those with interests in the EU where EU law applies. Such companies already have 24/7 coverage.
There will be a system put in place for making the requests, it won't be by phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Censor what WE say is unacceptable ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, ok, if it is islamic jihad saying "blow xyz up"...that's pretty easy.
But if it is some one that gets on and says something racist, or sexist, or some other -ist of the day.....do they compel them to take it down, when it isn't actually promoting violence or damage to someone or some group?
I know other parts of the world don't have a 1A in their constitutions, but it should be something that most all strive towards, and especially on the internet...it has long been a way for anyone to hook a computer on and have an equal voice in the world.
It may not be popular or in good taste what they say, but all speech needs to be protected as long as it isn't inciting direct violent, etc......
Re: (Score:3)
I"m wondering who is the judge of what is extremist and must be removed?
Is this really a mystery? The answer is: a judge. Germany has had laws against hate speech and holocaust denial even since the end of World War 2, laws which we basically (literally?) forced on them. And like any laws, these are enforced in courts and judged by judges.
The rest of Europe is extremely aware of that history, and there are similar laws in most European countries.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is actually a list of designated terrorist organisations on Wikipedia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
Note that the US has one of the longest lists and effectively the same ban on their content, just without the 1 hour time limit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah...I"m wondering who is the judge of what is extremist and must be removed?
From the article snippet: "The EU's executive body said "propaganda that prepares, incites or glorifies acts of terrorism" - so seems like it's limited to direct terrorist acts indoctrination and not ideology.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Enemies self identify.
By EU requiring deletion of extremist's posts, they are aiding the criminals and terrorists by destroying evidence.
The article mentioned "removing" not "erasing". I do not think it's a valid concern.
Re:Disband the E.U. (Score:5, Informative)
The countries the AC has listed are governed by right-wring governments, one of them more or less a dictatorship, and all of them take down terrorist content and incitements to violence as fast as they can right now, without the need of any EU directive. Turkey has put tens of thousands of citizens into prison under vague terrorist accusations and there are currently, as we speak, EU actions against Hungary and Poland, because their governments have stifled the press and interfered with the judicial system. Last but not least, the UK has enacted extensive internet surveillance laws and is known to barely protect journalists. In a nutshell, these countries belong to those within the EU that are for more censorship, not against it.
So yeah, the AC's post makes zero sense., even if some US Slashdot mods don't understand that.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry your such a fucking idiot.
Ah the irony of being called a fucking idiot by someone with grammar mistakes. It's like a compliment.
Oh please (Score:4, Funny)
Why not just require companies to allow EU officials to log in and delete content they don't approve of themselves?
Go one better. Allow citizens to flag content as offensive and if the annointed EU officials don't log in and delete it within an hour, sentence them to shubbery hunts.
Re: (Score:2)
I know creating a big ole government run bureaucracy is the goal of all statists... it's sooooo much easier to simply put an unfunded mandate on (foreign) companies and expect them to comply... or block EU citizens from being able to use the services.
The Great Firewall (Score:5, Insightful)
Of Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
Sucks for the News Media (Score:4, Insightful)
"propaganda that prepares, incites or glorifies acts of terrorism" I guess most of the news will have to be taken down. This seems really easy to abuse. But Europe has a narrower version of free speech, so it's really no surprise.
Re: (Score:2)
True. Terrorism is nothing without the news.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on your definition of terrorism.
If you use the definition of terrorism that became popular over the last 17 years and is constantly repeated by the talking heads, one that terrorism is anything that makes people afraid, then yes, that's all the popular media outlets. People collectively are cowards.
If you use the definition of terrorism that's been used for nearly two centuries, which is "the use of violence to induce governmental or political change", then no, actual terrorism will continue to
Re: (Score:2)
And what does your post have to do with the parent and grand-parent post?
The news has been glorifying terrorism. The best way to get your name known worldwide and maybe even have a book written about you and perhaps even a film made in your honour is to kill a bunch of people, the more people you kill, the bigger the news, it's de facto glorification, it's terrorism worship. Want 24/7 news coverage for a week? Kill people. Want your name in the history books? Kill people.
Re: (Score:2)
Cultural differences (Score:2)
But Europe has a narrower version of free speech, so it's really no surprise.
Almost as un-surprising as USA's extreme phobia of uncovered nipples.
The Internet is the Second Library of Alexandria (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Great Library was burned because the information challenged the authority of those in power, to the savages burned it.
The Internet, on the other hand, is being burned by savages who weild censorship in exchange for votes so political opponents cannot challenge their power.
As you can clearly see, there is an enormous difference as to why those savages in power are burning their various great libraries.
Who gets to decide what is extreme? (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally I think it is insane that a search engine or indexing company should be in any way responsible for pointing to content that is publicly available on the Internet. I can see take down orders to ISPs hosting content (assuming the content is illegal in the jurisdiction where the servers are), but going after people telling you where the content exists is scary.
It's a slippery slope and not that far from making the statement "If you go to the library, you can learn out to build a bomb" illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Who gets to decide what is extreme? (Score:2)
ISPs paid money to Eurodegenerates, Googe did not.
Similarly to prostitution in Sweden. Feminazis are influential, so police is going after jons, not touching prostitutes.
Imagine a world where drug cartels are operating freely, but the drug users are shamed and punished by prison terms
Re: (Score:2)
Many search engines adjusted their results for inquiries regarding vaccines and autism. They did it after being criticised for giving people links to sites that were endangering children's lives by giving bad information.
Libraries do this all the time, selecting which books to buy and discarding ones that are discredited or found to be problematic. They don't see themselves as book warehouses, they as themselves as sources of knowledge.
Search engines want the be the source of all information and knowledge.
Re: (Score:2)
Search engines want the be the source of all information and knowledge. It's reasonable to expect them to be responsible, and I'm sure they would mostly agree.
While it is reasonable to expect responsibility, the challenge is that the definition of "responsible" can vary based on your point of view. If a search engine wants to filter information for correctness or even skew the information they reference to meet their political believes, that should be up to the search engine. Of course if a search information does too much filtering, is too biased, or is viewed by the majority of users as irresponsible, it opens up opportunities for the market to decide that some
Re: (Score:2)
What is really weird about this is if the speech itself was illegal, why aren't they arresting the person who posted it? If the threat is so imminent that it requires a one hour response time, why don't they just monitor who accesses it to get leads into organizations that spread "extreme" ideas?
TL;DR,There is a reason for this proposal other than what is being presented. This is an attempt to gain power through censorship.
2 much better laws (Score:4, Interesting)
2 much better laws, with the same lack of logic:
1) Everything bad is banned.
2) Everything good is required.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it fall under pornography. They know it when they see it.
Re: (Score:2)
Critical Hour (Score:5, Interesting)
"He said that removing material within an hour is important because it's "the critical window in which the greatest damage is done...Content would be flagged up by national authorities, who would issue removal orders to the internet companies hosting it. Those companies would be given one hour to delete it."
So the hour after national authorities find it is this critical window? Everything before that is fine? The greatest damage is only done after the national authorities have flagged it?
Re:Critical Hour (Score:5, Insightful)
And if you remove it at 59:59, it has almost all the impact of that window while 100% compliant. Doesn't make any sense at all. It's allowed to be online for the whole critical window, so what's the point?
Re: (Score:2)
Most jail cells [redditmedia.com] do not have computers and internet provided.
Re: (Score:3)
Normally by the time Authorities find it, and determine it is extremist, the damage has been done, as the content would probably be out there for days or weeks. Most of the Extremist ideas are stupid, but the people who is creating it and spewing it are not idiots, being extremists they will feel compelled to spew it, and will find ways around national authorities, and get the word out just as fast as before.
It seems like the EU wants to be blocked (Score:3)
If they keep going like this with those completely unreasonable demands and articles, basically all websites will block the EU countries completely.
And this is how Free Speech dies... (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounds good, but who defines "extremist content" or worse "incites acts of terrorism". It might be clear to you and me what this would be, but how about if you don't agree with what people say who are in control of this definition? You don't think a huge government entity will use it's power to remove content against it's view or agenda? Especially since in their point of view it could "incite acts of terrorism". How about the term "hate speach"? Say something someone doesn't like and it's "hate".
I hope people wake up soon. Rarely do rights get given back by a government body. They usually have to be ripped from their cold dead hands.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This is decided by judges on the basis of applicable law.
So was the Holocaust.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: And this is how Free Speech dies... (Score:2)
So anything critical of totalitarian financialism will be labeled extremist. Thanks for the clarification.
Re:And this is how Free Speech dies... (Score:4, Interesting)
It sounds good, but who defines "extremist content" or worse "incites acts of terrorism". It might be clear to you and me what this would be, but how about if you don't agree with what people say who are in control of this definition?
Just to note, you don't need a definition if instead you have a decision procedure.
That's basically true of much of common law, and why a lawyer will so often tell you "I can advise you on how to mitigate risk based on precedent but the only way to get a definitive answer for your question is to take it to court".
I think DMCA is a good example of this. It talks about "infringing material" but the DMCA law as written is actually independent of the details of what counts as infringing. Everything is expressed in terms of the process of sending a takedown letter, then responding, then going to court should there be disagreement. (It didn't touch upon how to deal with DOS takedown-letter attacks, nor how an SLA for responses, but in the light of DMCA then I bet the EU will at least think about these).
So what it would ultimately boil down to is this: the people who control the definition would be (1) the nation's supreme court, albeit with the narrow remit of having to stick with the intent of the vague words in the statute rather than complete freedom to define it any way they want, and with the various institutional checks and balances that countries have built up over the centuries to stop the supreme courts getting far out of line, and with the ultimate sanction of popular revolt if they do, (2) the practical business considerations that encourage companies to use caution rather than pushing at the edge of the definition, (3) the practical business desires to make money even when that does push at the edge of the definition.
If the bottom line is you think we shouldn't have any laws unless there's a 100% objective unarguable measurement to determine things -- that would be an interesting thought experiment, but it's far removed from how things are today.
Re: (Score:3)
It sounds good, but who defines "extremist content" or worse "incites acts of terrorism". It might be clear to you and me what this would be, but how about if you don't agree with what people say who are in control of this definition?
Exactly. Unfortunately, even among mostly reasonable people, there exists a wide range of views regarding what constitutes extremism. In the hands of dictators (e.g., Russia, Turkey, and China), extremism or terrorism is defined as whatever challenges the existing dictator or party. This type of censorship law allows those dictators to claim that they are acting exactly like the so-called democratic governments.
Sigh here we go again (Score:2)
EU To Give Internet Firms 1 Hour To Remove Extremist Content
Well, time to fire up the military and give then 2 years to remove extremist censors in government.
You weren't freed from Nazis so 60 years later neo-dictators could censor free people.
The problem never has been the content of speech, but rather the existence of powers a wannabe dictator uses to harm political enemies.
These include various forms of censorship both direct and indirect, investigating political enemies or threatening to, or their supporters, or outright arresting them, amd so on.
This is not so
Jobs Program (Score:2)
I see: 32-hour workweek, 1-hour response time. That's a lot of employees.
Also: small businesses and startups need not exist.
Going to be super easy to misuse (Score:2)
Why bother hacking anything anymore, when laws mandate companies provide channels to accomplish what it would otherwise take a lot of hacking to do?
I can see this insta-remove system being really abused for a lot of valid content. Going to be interesting to watch them try to live in the world they are creating.
I'm so embarrassed (Score:3)
And to think, that as an American, I was feeling sorry for myself. Never again. I should have known, no matter how crazy America gets, Europe will always be worse. That doesn't mean I excuse or accept how hard we try to fuck ourselves, but I tell you this: the grass isn't greener on the other side of the fence. For all its blemishes .. America, fuck yeah!!! Our First Amendment will always make you people look like backwards cavemen.
Re: (Score:2)
And oh yes, I realize how many ways you can make fun of us. But we [still] have this.
To each his own (Score:3)
And oh yes, I realize how many ways you can make fun of us. But we [still] have this.
And here, we still have "display of titties" not being considered as a terrorist act. To each his own.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I still believe in America. Some day we will have our chocolate-covered nipples. You'll see.
I give all this EU Internet shit about a month (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I really hope you are right. This is a slide into darkness that must be stopped.
Re: (Score:2)
If every link, comment and creative expression from the EU has to be approved my governments?
EU government approved online comedy, art, music, book reviews, movie reviews, cartoons, news, blogs, comments, politics, memes.
When published in the EU some EU bureaucrat has approved the news, speech, publication.
Re: (Score:2)
What they really want: RELIGIOUS content (Score:2)
Cool, "Inquisition 2.0"
Any religious content from any religion that espouses any kind of violence, banned.
The Koran and Old Testament call for murder of others on religious principles. Ban all that. Should be fun.
The EU doesn't have a content problem, they have a culture problem - they are infested by cultures prone to irrationality inspired by magical thinking. It doesn't matter what is banned - irrational creatures will continue to be irrational.
They want total censorship (Score:2)
The only way to realistically do this is to vet every posting manually that is even slightly suspicious beforehand. That is censorship, nothing else.
This is a specific kind of evil that especially the Germans are into (but lovers of authoritarianism everywhere can relate). Germany has an absolute "no censorship" in its constitution that cannot be changed. But because they love censorship so much, they are now going this route.
Of course, nobody even considers what the problem with censorship (and authoritari
Kills the small guys (Score:2)
This is a case of the fix being worse than the problem. (or maybe the problem is control freak politicians)
Re: (Score:2)
Sauce for the goose (Score:2)
Fair's fair. Content flagged up by national authorities could be counternoticed by the posters, who would issue summons to the national authorities into national courts. Those national authorities would be given one hour to appear to defend the
In Soviet Russia... (Score:2)
Clueless (Score:2)
FANG companies will love this (Score:2)
It gives them a mandate to remove anything that they think might be likely to get flagged, which means they can remove all the rough stuff and leave nothing but kitty pictures, banal status updates, and pornography.
They can take a look at any content that is off-mainstream and say, "This is likely to generate a 1-hour ban, so we're just going to remove it in advance and kick out the perpetrators," which leaves them with what they have always wanted, which are "safe spaces" where people can project their ego
Re: (Score:2)
FANG is Facebook, Apple, Netflix, Google. Apple is already pretty "community standards"-y. Netflix only posts their own content. Facebook doesn't give a shit what's on it, as long as you keep reading it. Same for Google. All they care about is dollars.
Someone's got to tell them that 1984... (Score:2)
Between this and the copyright/link tax shit (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to EU censorship (Score:2)
Jokes and funny pictures about French politics?
A joke about Spain and its politics?
Cartoons that are considered blasphemy?
Memes about EU and EU nation politics?
Re: (Score:2)
Step One (Score:3)
Block all content from the EU commission. Block all email to and from members of the EU governing body and their employees. Do cell phones fall under these new regulations? If so, disable them.
They did say extremist content must be removed. Just following the rules.
Extremist Content (Score:3)
You have to understand what is considered "extremist content" in those European countries (like my own) which already have similar regulation in their national law: criticising Islam, criticising EU-Migration Policies, reporting on crime, discussing non p.c. scientific findings, etc.
Essentially, anything can and will be deleted which the Government considers objectionable. A one-hour deadline guarantees that there is no possibility for carriers to even take a look at the material to be censored or raise objections. The requirement can only be met, if the deletion is essentially automatic.
So much wrong (Score:2)
"He said that removing material within an hour is important because it's "the critical window in which the greatest damage is done." The EU's executive body said "propaganda that prepares, incites or glorifies acts of terrorism" must be taken offline. Content would be flagged up by national authorities, who would issue removal orders to the internet companies hosting it."
Just wow.
"He said that removing material within an hour is important because it's "the critical window in which the greatest damage is don
Re: (Score:3)
And since rerouting around damage is a feature that was part of the Internet concept from the getgo, then that would mean the Internt is operating as intended.
Re: (Score:2)
So, punish people for seeking knowledge? Not everyone who views extremist content is themselves an extremist, you know.
Re: (Score:2)
The Stasi, GeStaPo and their present-day successors applaud your great idea!
Re: (Score:2)
Leave the content up, get a bald/bearded guy, infiltrate him into the group and as soon he have enough evidences, everyone goes to jail.
It's completely incredible that there is any sort of radical group that don't have a police plant in it.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, using other illegal bytes, this is very old.
Re: (Score:2)
That is exactly the problem with censorship. And this is censorship, as there is no reasonable way to implement this except by pre-screening everything. Censorship is not much of a problem if the government is strongly pro-freedom. No government ever is. They all want more control and all want to prevent people forming opinions that could lead to a change in government. If allowed by the population, this goes down a very dark road indeed, ending in fascism and related ideas.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In May 2018, Robinson was sentenced to 13 months' imprisonment for contempt of court after publishing a Facebook Live video of defendants entering a law court, contrary to a court order to prevent reporting those trials while proceedings are ongoing.
Not obeying a court order will get you sentenced in every single country on earth.
Re: (Score:2)
He admitted committing contempt of court by publishing information that could prejudice an ongoing trial via a live stream on his Facebook page.
Robinson made clear that he was aware of the restrictions during the Facebook Live video, as well as the danger of being jailed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Europeans tried violence and war, two of the times were really awful and we shouldn't encourage them to repeat it.